Manuel Zorzi1, Paolo Giorgi Rossi2, Carla Cogo3, Fabio Falcini4, Daniela Giorgi5, Grazia Grazzini6, Loretta Mariotti7, Vincenzo Matarese8, Fabio Soppelsa9, Carlo Senore10, Antonio Ferro11. 1. Registro Tumori del Veneto, Passaggio Gaudenzio 1, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: manuel.zorzi@ioveneto.it. 2. Servizio Interaziendale Epidemiologia, Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia, via Amendola 2, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Electronic address: Paolo.GiorgiRossi@ausl.re.it. 3. Registro Tumori del Veneto, Passaggio Gaudenzio 1, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: crr.screening@ioveneto.it. 4. Unità Operativa di Prevenzione Oncologica, Ospedale Civile G.B. Morgagni L. Pierantoni, AUSL di Forlì, via Forlanini 34, Forlì, Italy. Electronic address: f.falcini@ausl.fo.it. 5. S.C. Epidemiologia e Screening, Azienda Sanitaria Locale 2 di Lucca, via per Sant'Alessio - Monte San Quirico, Lucca, Italy. Electronic address: d.giorgi@usl2.toscana.it. 6. Screening Unit Cancer Prevention and Research Institute ISPO, via Cosimo il Vecchio 2, Firenze, Italy. Electronic address: g.grazzini@ispo.toscana.it. 7. Laboratorio Unico di Screening, Azienda Sanitaria Locale 2 di Perugia, via XIV settembre 75, Perugia, Italy. Electronic address: lmariotti@ausl2.umbria.it. 8. Unità Operativa di Gastroenterologia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria S. Anna, Cona-Ferrara, via Moro 8, Cona,FE, Italy. Electronic address: mtv@unife.it. 9. Dipartimento di Prevenzione, Azienda Sanitaria Locale 1 di Belluno, via S. Andrea 8, Belluno, Italy. Electronic address: fabio.soppelsa@ulss.belluno.it. 10. Centro per la Prevenzione Oncologica (CPO), via San Francesco da Paola 31, Torino, Italy. Electronic address: carlo.senore@cpo.it. 11. Dipartimento di Prevenzione, Azienda Sanitaria Locale 17 di Este Monselice, via Francesconi 2, Este,PD, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.ferro@ulss17.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this parallel randomised controlled trial was to compare compliance with different modalities used to invite patients with a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test (FIT+) for a total colonoscopy (TC). METHOD:FIT+ patients from nine Italian colorectal cancer screening programmes were randomised to be invited for a TC initially by mail or by phone and, for non-compliers, to be recalled by mail, for counselling with a general practitioner, or to meet with a specialist screening practitioner (nurse or healthcare assistant). RESULTS: In all, 3777 patients were randomised to different invitation strategies. Compliance with an initial invitation by mail and by phone was similar (86.0% vs. 84.0%, relative risk - RR: 1.02; 95%CI 0.97-1.08). Among non-responders to the initial invitation, compliance with a recall by appointment with a specialist practitioner was 50.4%, significantly higher than with a mail recall (38.1%; RR:1.33; 95%CI 1.01-1.76) or with a face-to-face counselling with the GP (30.8%; RR:1.45;95%CI 1.14-1.87). CONCLUSION: Compliance with an initial invitation for a TC by mail and by phone was similar. A personal meeting with a specialist screening practitioner was associated with the highest compliance among non-compliers with initial invitations, while the involvement of GPs in this particular activity seemed less effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this parallel randomised controlled trial was to compare compliance with different modalities used to invite patients with a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test (FIT+) for a total colonoscopy (TC). METHOD: FIT+ patients from nine Italian colorectal cancer screening programmes were randomised to be invited for a TC initially by mail or by phone and, for non-compliers, to be recalled by mail, for counselling with a general practitioner, or to meet with a specialist screening practitioner (nurse or healthcare assistant). RESULTS: In all, 3777 patients were randomised to different invitation strategies. Compliance with an initial invitation by mail and by phone was similar (86.0% vs. 84.0%, relative risk - RR: 1.02; 95%CI 0.97-1.08). Among non-responders to the initial invitation, compliance with a recall by appointment with a specialist practitioner was 50.4%, significantly higher than with a mail recall (38.1%; RR:1.33; 95%CI 1.01-1.76) or with a face-to-face counselling with the GP (30.8%; RR:1.45;95%CI 1.14-1.87). CONCLUSION: Compliance with an initial invitation for a TC by mail and by phone was similar. A personal meeting with a specialist screening practitioner was associated with the highest compliance among non-compliers with initial invitations, while the involvement of GPs in this particular activity seemed less effective.
Authors: Kevin Selby; Christine Baumgartner; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Joanne Schottinger; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David Stock; Linda Rabeneck; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence F Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Lingsong Yun; Jill Tinmouth Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 7.327